Homesteading Forum banner

Should they pay.

1K views 31 replies 16 participants last post by  Alice In TX/MO 
#1 · (Edited)
A guestion being asked nearly all week, bY every TV station that broad cast in the thumb area of Michigan, ABC 12 Flint, CBS WNEM TV 5 out of Saginaw, Fox WMSH TV 66 Flint and NBC WEYI TV 25 in Clio.
Should those when the warnings to stay off the Saginaw Bay ice were issued and need rescueing by the Coast Guard or other rescue group pay the bill?

Since Sunday Nearly a week ago it has been above normal warm and warnings were issued by about every law inforcement agnecys, and the Coast Guard around the bay has been telling on TV & radio news broad cast to stay off the ice it isn't safe.

One man has died so far and at least a dozen have been rescued just this week. The ice just isn't safe at all and the winds don't make it any safer with it blowing out into Lake huron making flows , yesterday recued got caught on one such.

This week we also had record rain falls along with a foot plus snow melt. Lots of flooded rivers creeks and other water courses all flowing into Saginaw Bay. All that water also weakens the ice.

You can see those reports if you visit any of the TV stations listed above.

My feeling are if they have to be rescued off the ice by any LEO resuce division or the Coast Guard When the warnings have been issued they should pay the bill for fuel and wages.

Plus any equipment that has to be left on the ice, ATV, Snowmobiles, ice augers and shantys and shelters they should pay a pollution fine also.

I just can't see putting people in danger for those who refuse to listen and stay off the ice. Just leave them to their own divices and stop pollanting the gene pool.

Buy a air boat that can go across the ice and make the jump across cracks between land and floes.

http://www.wnem.com/story/37575877/breaking-ice-rescue-underway-for-4-men-trapped-on-ice-floe


:D Al
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Might be unpopular but I think YES, they should if a place is posted and marked to not enter because of dangerous conditions then absolutely. So Thin Ice on lakes, rivers of course or even on mountains when those dimwits into closed areas and get lost or otherwise need some kind of rescue. Same for idiots who climb up construction cranes and get stuck way up top. WHY should Joe & Jane Public pay because of some Self-Important Mental Midget decides that the signs, postings, keep out fences etc do not apply to them because they feel Entitled to do whatever they want for whatever stupid idea they come up with. Like those twits taking Selfies (which supports the self-important, entitled "I'm special" dimwits). Criminal Charges if applicable, fines for causing damage when they do and Environmental fines for sinking ATV, Skidoo, Vehicle etc into lake / river etc.. sure. Ohh and retrieval of same too ! as often they have to be pulled out and that ain't cheap in most cases either! Heck I'd even go as far as giving Insurance Companies waivers for such "stupid" so they do not have to pay for personal irresponsibility & stupidity.

Couple of potential exceptions though... for example when Ice Fishing huts are permitted and something goes terribly wrong, which can happen, or if the responsible group/org that handles that does not state when the ice is reaching a minimum safe level, to remove huts. We have ice fishing here and the ice thickness is checked by the local authorities and they post when it's time to get huts off but on rare occasions one hut might get sunk or a vehicle being used to pull them off goes through a weak spot... although that's pretty rare, most of those folks KNOW when to get their huts off and they do pay attention. The $5000 fine for not paying attention IS a deterrent I'm sure.
 
#3 ·
I think they shouldn't have to pay because the fire department, police department, coast guard, etc. are all paid daily whether there is an incident or not. If there is an emergency and they insist on being paid extra for doing their job then likewise it would be fare not to pay them on days when there are no incidents.

If signs are posted and people still take the risk then it is not big deal if they die. If they are dumb enough to risk their life then that is on them. It is like people swimming at the beach when the life guard is off duty...it is your problem if you get in danger.
 
#5 ·
Throwing your back out while on your roof unhooking the Christmas lights from 2013 is what I consider falling inside the boundaries of a typical rescue/call. A ladder truck, stretcher and board, a few hours and a minimum of resources expended.
Hiking thru the Smokey Mountains in shorts and flip flops with no water or compass in an area restricted for permit hikes only, and then having air/land search and rescue, dogs, multiple agencies, helicopters to pull you from the tree the bear chased you up after you tried doing selfies with her cubs is what I consider above and beyond.
At that point we take credit or debit.
 
#6 ·
@CityBound Meanwhile while out rescuing some stupid fool, a genuine incident occurs and they are to tied up with an idiot.... happens ! While, yeah, they are being paid (firefighters for example) it costs a lot of money & takes up resources to run a rescue operation, it's not just the wages you know and other lives get put into potential risk because of it.
 
#10 ·
I think you are missing the point. The issue is that having these people supported by tax money plus having to pay them when actually using their services is analogous to having to pay insurance premiums just to have the doctor available plus having to pay full price out of pocket if you actually need any services.
 
#7 ·
@GTX SO TRUE !!! Good Lord we get those up here and occasionally have to bring in troops from the nearby Forces Base to do Search & Rescue because of some moronic tourist with no sense at all. The cost of fuel for rescue choppers is NOT $3.00 a gallon eh ! and they use a lot of fuel.

The throwing back out on roof is a valid example of genuine rescue help needed, that falls into the "crap happens" section and is not intentional or deliberate or even unsafe to begin with but as well know, crap does happen... that's legit stuff.
 
#24 ·
Yup, it's called the stupid motorist law.

One Sunday I was on my roof (in Arizona). One thing led to another and I ended up being stranded there. After calling a couple people and realizing they all were at church, I called the fire department. Yes - we'll come get you down - but you'll pay - enough that I decided to figure out an alternative or wait it out until church was over.
 
#12 ·
In principle I agree with you, particularly regarding the egregiously stupid, but the problem is where do you draw the line and how do you keep that line more or less stationary? Most every exception supposedly reserved for extreme cases will eventually be applied to everyone, much like the SWAT team no-knock warrant service was sold to us as a tool for dealing with the extremely dangerous criminals who would almost certainly initiate a gunfight if they had any warning and now seems to have become the preferred method of delivering warrants and/or making arrests.
 
#13 ·
Lol, I'm think you are wary of the gubbmint.
I get it. Insurance companies base rates on age, health, lifestyle and habits. We could allow the same format for EMTs.
Then again that deep state death panel would determine my age and demographic require that they leave me hanging from the side of the cliff and keep the choppers on the helipad.
 
#15 ·
maybe a lack of understanding here... One hour of SAR chopper time runs between $10,000 - $14,000 ! When you start throwing equipment, rescuers and pulling in resources to run a Search & Rescue there is a massive amount of expenditure beyond just hourly wages. AND there is also a risk to all involved because 95% odds they will have to risk Their lives to save someone, sometimes the rescuers die too !. That my friend is no joke and not some whimsical claim, happens far to much.
 
#21 ·
Maybe we need to just tell people flat out "You can climb that mountain and you are on your own if you run into trouble. Feel free to go, it is on your head.". Then stick to it even if people die.

Or, make people lay down collateral enough to cover any rescue mission before they go. If they make it back they reclaim their property, if not then it goes to cover rescue costs.
 
#18 ·
There are legit needs for rescue, for example the ice has been deemed safe and you decide to go out for a day of ice fishing on the Bay.

The wind does change and gets floe going out into Lake Huron. I am sure Canada doesn't want people rideing ice floes voliating there borders so they need to be picked up.

No warnings so is a ligit rescue.

But where there has been warnings in the morning new programs, the noon news cast and again in the evening all week. Isn't a ligit rescue to me.

The stuff happens is far different than giving rht finger to every one and doing some thing you have been warned many times not to do.

Problem with not rescueing them is bodies getting caught by liquid fisher men later on.


:D Al
 
#19 ·
Would be easy to prosecute many of these cases when people wonder into “posted or out of bounds” areas such as snow and mountains or on the ice when fishing in the winter. Would not cover the overhead but it would at last get their attention. No need to let them get off easy. Community service, fines, etc.
 
#22 ·
of course they should pay, when you ignore safety rules, you are costing the tax payers money, the cost of rescuing some one is a lot more than them sitting on stand by, and not only risk the lives of the rescuers, its a lot of the problem with the world now, people need to be held accountable for there actions
 
#25 ·
I'll go with North Shore Search and Rescue on not charging for rescues.
http://www.northshorerescue.com/services/charging-for-rescues/
They explain their reasons quite well.
In BC, we apparently garner half of the country's 'search and rescues' every year. It costs us a penny, but what can one do...
It seems ski hills (private businesses) will bill for rescues, but rarely do they get paid. Instead, government picks up the tab.
If we try to parse the idiots from those who made a 'mistake', well, we'd be mired in what constitutes reckless behavior. Many of our rescues are old folks with demetia etc., who just wander off, and BC's mountains can be unforgiving.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/and-how-will-you-be-paying/

The other thing not mentioned is economic status. If we started charging, a wealthy lost person would have no issue calling in air support, whereas a financially struggling individual would think twice about calling in a 10k an hour ground and heli search.
Then search and rescues would be a wealthy privilege, yet paid for by all.

I hit the hills quite often in summer...solo. I am in places that, if hurt or my machine broke down, I could be in a pickle. Heck, some places, I would never be found. Nice to know there is the possibility of being rescued if the need arose. I do take plenty of precautions, like spare parts, gear for overnight, etc. We have two main problems in our hood, vacationers who think climbing a mountain in flip-flops is kosher and forget that once in trees, you can't see the city anymore, and residents who may not wear flip-flops, but think the next mountain (out of bounds) has better snow...after all, who likes to ski down a groomed run when the next mountain has virgin snow. I think there should be more training for the adventurous types and signs that explicitly convey the gravity of the situation to prospective adventurers. For instance, If you go beyond this sign, please have overnight gear, a map, a compass, bear spray, a locator beacon, and notify your next of kin so we can inform them if you die. Too often folks see a trail sign and think they are in a city park.
 
#29 ·
A few years ago, two women from Iowa, on vacation in Michigan's U.P., driving towards Tiaquamenon Falls, got lost. The road went from blacktop to gravel to two track. Since it was April there were a few snow drifts. Eventually, they became stuck in the road. They had water and Girl Scout cookies. They had no cell phone reception. They stayed there for eleven days! Eventually, MDNR helicopter sighted them and landed on the Lake Superior shore, a mile away, and Officers walk to their vehicle.
If we question if careless fishermen should get free rescues, can we question a person's unwillingness to walk back down the road they had just traveled, that resulted in many hours of searching and a rescue?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top